Nvidia BigK GK110 Kepler Speculation Thread

[Alexko]

That cooler sure looks good. Everything else is pretty much as expected.

Is that Nvidia's own numbers, because if so 35% faster than the 7970 GHz edition doesn't inspire me a lot.

If the power budget is similar (which it appears to be) that's pretty damn good. I suspect the actual average will be more like 20%, but still.

 

[LittleJ]

Is that Nvidia's own numbers, because if so 35% faster than the 7970 GHz edition doesn't inspire me a lot.

Really the only thing uninspiring would be the 800-900$ price tag. It looks to be at least 25-35% faster on average than a 7970GHz on exactly same bandwidth and similar power budget. In previous generations NV's big dies were very close in performance to substantially smaller AMD chips(GT200b vs RV870, GF100 vs Cypress, GF110 vs Cayman). This time around it looks like they are achieving about the same performance per mm2 as AMD.

Other than price/limited availability there is not much to dislike about GK110 IMO.

 

[Man from Atlantis]

1.3TF DP, so it is full blown, not 1:24 after all?

 

[KimB]

Is that Nvidia's own numbers, because if so 35% faster than the 7970 GHz edition doesn't inspire me a lot.

It's about 50% faster according to those benchmarks:
70 + 0.5*70 = 105.

 

[DavidGraham]

Is that Nvidia's own numbers, because if so 35% faster than the 7970 GHz edition doesn't inspire me a lot.

I think the percentages are calculated wrongly , the lower card should retain the 100% standard while the upper card should be above 100% .

If Titan achieves 100 fps , while 680 achieves 60 fps , that slide would say Titan is 40% faster than 680 , while in fact it is 66% faster .

 

[DuckThor Evil]

That cooler sure looks good. Everything else is pretty much as expected.

Well IF those numbers are real Crysis 2 and BF3 shows a bit over 50% on top of 680. 3DMark Firestrike shows around 50% improvement. It should look pretty good in GPU limited situations. That Crysis 3 comparison doesn't look too hot though.

I want to see how far these will OC.

 

[CarstenS]

1.3TF DP, so it is full blown, not 1:24 after all?

1.3 do not exactly fit to 4.5, don't they?

 

[Alexko]

It's about 50% faster according to those benchmarks:
70 + 0.5*70 = 105.

If you cherry-pick NVIDIA's already cherry-picked benchmarks, sure!

 

[A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y]

Is that Nvidia's own numbers, because if so 35% faster than the 7970 GHz edition doesn't inspire me a lot.

100%/65% is 53.8% faster.

 

[Skinner]

Is that Nvidia's own numbers, because if so 35% faster than the 7970 GHz edition doesn't inspire me a lot.

It's probably CPU-limited at that res.

 

[silent_guy]

Can you guys do it the scientific way when you're throwing out numbers, and reference which ones you chose to cherry pick?

 

[jimbo75]

I chose them all, even the synthetics. However what David Graham says is probably right, and they've made a real arse of the graph?

 

[A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y]

Can you guys do it the scientific way when you're throwing out numbers, and reference which ones you chose to cherry pick?

From this post: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1708544&postcount=939

Using the GTX Titan % Performance 1920'1200 chart

Crysis 2: Titan is 53.8% faster than the GTX680 (100/65)

BF3: Titan is 53.8% faster than the GTX680 (100/65)

Far Cry 3: Titan is 36.9% faster than the GTX680 (100/73)

Hitman: Titan is 36.9% faster than the GTX680 (100/73)

---

3DMARK 2013 X Firestrike: Titan is 49.2% faster than the GTX680 (100/67)

3DMARK Vantage GPU: Titan is 23.4% faster than the GTX680 (100/81)

 

[UniversalTruth]

You forget the most important- in Crysis 3 it is less than 30%.

 

[jimbo75]

From this post: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1708544&postcount=939

Using the GTX Titan % Performance 1920'1200 chart

Crysis 2: Titan is 53.8% faster than the GTX680 (100/65)

BF3: Titan is 53.8% faster than the GTX680 (100/65)

Far Cry 3: Titan is 36.9% faster than the GTX680 (100/73)

Hitman: Titan is 36.9% faster than the GTX680 (100/73)

---

3DMARK 2013 X Firestrike: Titan is 49.2% faster than the GTX680 (100/67)

3DMARK Vantage GPU: Titan is 23.4% faster than the GTX680 (100/81)

Now maybe you can explain to me how much faster it is compared to the 7970 GHz?

 

[gongo]

Really the only thing uninspiring would be the 800-900$ price tag. It looks to be at least 25-35% faster on average than a 7970GHz on exactly same bandwidth and similar power budget. In previous generations NV's big dies were very close in performance to substantially smaller AMD chips(GT200b vs RV870, GF100 vs Cypress, GF110 vs Cayman). This time around it looks like they are achieving about the same performance per mm2 as AMD.

Other than price/limited availability there is not much to dislike about GK110 IMO.

Not too sure about this....GTX580 was substantially more powerful than 6970...same thing applies to GTX480 (about GTX570 levels) and 5870...it just took them drivers some time to mature..

I seen this chart...

 

[AlphaWolf]

The average of all titles (in the chart) show the Titan as 34.5%faster than a 7970GE. Can we move on now?

 

[A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y]

You forget the most important- in Crysis 3 it is less than 30%.

Why is "Crysis 3" most important?
Does no one play BF3 or Far Cry 3 anymore?

Crysis 3 was not in the chart mentioned. It is in the one above it but no hard numbers were assigned nor resolution mentioned.

Guessing the numbers at 38 to 48 fps gives it a 26.3% gain but again no other setup data was given.

 

[UniversalTruth]

Because Crysis 3 is The Game. In comparison to it both BF3 full of bugs and FarCry 3 are crap.

 

[LittleJ]

I'm wondering on its overclocking abilities. Its somewhat clocked conservatively(for obvious reasons) at stock similarly to the 7970 when it launched. This thing could spit out huge performance over 1GHz, especially if they leave voltage tweakable, unlike the other 600 series....